Key result
Empirical prophylactic treatment with a pacemaker or antiarrhythmic drugs did not prevent syncopal recurrences, which occurred in 42.9% and 25% of treated patients versus 25.6% of untreated patients.
Why the study?
Does empirical prophylactic treatment prevent syncopal recurrences or complications in patients with unexplained syncope and a negative electrophysiologic study?
Population
58 patients with unexplained syncope and a negative electrophysiologic study.
Comparison
Empirical prophylactic treatment with a… vs No empirical prophylactic treatment
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
mean 36.6 +/- 20.5 months (median: 30.5 months)
Authors
Loading...
Empirical prophylaxis should not yet change practice in unexplained syncope after negative EPS; leaves open targeted strategies for high-risk subgroups.
Cohort (n=58)
Does empirical prophylactic treatment prevent syncopal recurrences or complications in patients with unexplained syncope and a negative electrophysiologic study?
In patients with unexplained syncope and a negative electrophysiologic study, syncopal recurrences are common but generally non-cardiac, sudden death is rare, and empirical prophylactic treatment does not appear to prevent complications.
RAVIEL et al. (1989) conducted a cohort in Unexplained syncope with negative electrophysiologic study (n=58). Empirical prophylactic treatment (pacemaker or antiarrhythmic drugs) vs. Untreated was evaluated on Recurrences of syncope. Empirical prophylactic treatment with a pacemaker or antiarrhythmic drugs did not prevent syncopal recurrences, which occurred in 42.9% and 25% of treated patients versus 25.6% of untreated patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: